"Boyfriend Loophole"

[mehavey]

>
> boyfriend loophole by limiting gun rights for non-spouse
> dating partners who are convicted of domestic abuse.
>
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...week-rcna34404

I'm not so much against taking action against a man(?) who beats a woman(?),
but I can see all sorts of devil-in-the-details snakepits in the latest emotional
run-up to badly-written Law. *

Anyone actually know the elements of the argument that that Cornyn first walked out on... and then came back to support ?



* Take for instance just the basic definitions involved: According to the United States Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, the definition of domestic violence is a pattern of "abusive behavior" in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain control over another intimate partner.

[MarkA]

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorn and a poorly written piece of red flag legislation. Guilty until proven innocent, if you can afford it.

I suspect there'll be a lot of this going down if the states take up the idea and start pushing it forward.

[BarryLee]

I suspect we all know someone who went through a divorce and had their spouse use the persons ownership of firearms against them. Sadly, the outcome often has less to do with the truth and more the quality of their lawyer and the Judge's predetermined opinions on firearms.

[Spats McGee]

I feel fairly certain that lawyers have already figured out how to abuse red flag laws in divorce cases. It provides a ready-made system for getting the police to hold of someone's guns until their property is divided.

[Metal god]

I like the idea of "see something say something" . I don't know the numbers but it seems a good 75/80% of mass shootings have glaring "red flags" leading up to them . It's also my understanding that are constitution and many state and local laws make it very hard to legally do anything if a persons believes they observed bad intensions by another . The threshold is quite high to do anything about it , as it should be . However it would be nice to be able to stop someone that has the intent , means and opportunity to carry out the very bad things the say they want to do .

I could entertain the idea of red flag laws if written into them was automatic jail time for false claims , this includes government officials as well if they abuse the law . Lets start with we shouldn't have any law getting around due process and have no consequences for those that would abuse them .

Another aspect and not sure how you would word it in a law but "if" firearms are taken from a citizen without due process . They should go to an independent third party that the government does not control that "shall" return them with in 30 days if the government can't prove the person is a threat . To include the arrest of the complainant with in that same time frame . There must be a huge deterrent for false claims .

The problem as I see it with all of the above is mission creep of such laws . When CA first wrote there red flag law although not good it was quite limiting . They have since expanded it greatly to now pretty much anyone can submit a claim with no consequence if false .

IDK I'm already rethinking my stance when I think of the FISA court and how abused it is with 99% of all filings being approved . Nothing humans do is 99% correct so that stat is very troubling to me . How does the saying go " better to let 10 criminals free then to convict one innocent person" .

Thoughts ?

[OPC]

I have not read the Senate Bill, but the linked article states this proposed legislation only kicks in if the abuser has been previously convicted of domestic violence. I don't believe it's uncommon to have rights restricted after a conviction.

[Doc Intrepid]

My problem with red flag laws is that (as written - they are already in force in the State of Washington - and per my understanding) they provide for removal of someone's property with an inadequate review of facts, circumstances, or other evidence. There is a lack of due process that verifies or validates complaints. This sort of approach seems custom made for malicious claims - particularly when extended to include 'dating scenarios'.

How many of us have dated someone who expressed dismay at a subsequent breakup? Or who might take advantage of such laws to get back at someone?

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by OPC

I have not read the Senate Bill, but the linked article states this proposed legislation only kicks in if the abuser has been previously convicted of domestic violence. I don't believe it's uncommon to have rights restricted after a conviction.

Misdemeanor level "domestic violence" convictions have legal ownership of firearms for since 1996 by the Lautenberg Amendment to the GCA of 1968.

Felony convictions had already been in effect.

[Metal god]

I guess I should go read the senate proposal haha . However it’s my understanding they are only insensitivising states to pass red flag laws not proposing how they should read . That would be good if they are limiting what the state/s can do in order to receive the insensitive’s.

[OPC]

ballardw wrote: Misdemeanor level "domestic violence" convictions have legal ownership of firearms for since 1996 by the Lautenberg Amendment to the GCA of 1968.

Felony convictions had already been in effect.

Thanks for that clarification. My point was this proposed legislation wasn't a typical Red Flag law. Not meaning to imply it is a well written law, only that it seemed to rely on due process.

[44 AMP]

first point, reading articles about proposed agreements and bills does NOT tell you what's in them or what they would do if passed. It only tells you what the article's author THINKS they will do.

Next point,
as pointed out, people convicted of FELONY crimes have had their gun rights taken away, since 1968.

People CONVICTED of misdemeanor domestic violence have been prohibited persons since the Lautenberg Amendment since it passed in 96.

That law is an exemplary display of rabid, unreasoned gun control at it "finest".

First, it applies to ALL DV misdemeanor convictions, EVER. Not just ones that happened after the law was passed. Any that happened, ever....even 40 or more years before the law was passed are covered.

Second (and the only part of the law I actually agree with) was that there was NO EXEMPTION for police or active duty military. Including during the performance of their official duties.

IF the proposed "deal" in the Senate relies on conviction as a requirement, it does nothing that hasn't already been the law for at least 26 years...so far..

one more example of our tax dollars at work....

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

one more example of our tax dollars at work....

One could hope that the more time spent wasted on repeating what is already on the books reduces the amount of time to get up to more mischief.

[Tom Servo]

So, the draft is available here.

Starting on page 51 is the "boyfriend loophole" stuff. They want to redefine the crime of misdemeanor domestic violence to include people in dating relationships:

'dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature (...)

Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship under subparagraph shall be determined based on consideration of the length of the relationship; the nature of the relationship; and the frequency and type of interaction between the individuals involved in the relationship

It seems pretty murky, and intentionally so.

[cjwils]

"...continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature..."

Is there any legal definition of "continuing"? If I meet a girl for serious action twice, is that "continuing"? 3 times? 5 times?

[zukiphile]

There is no boyfriend loophole. If you are already prohibited from a transfer from an FFL, being a boyfriend doesn't lift the prohibition.

That some would like to disqualify someone from transfers for misdemeanors that aren't for domestic violence doesn't make the existing law one containing a loophole.

I feel fairly certain that lawyers have already figured out how to abuse red flag laws in divorce cases.

It's worse than that. The following fact case is recent and from my county.

[A] convict got out of prison for putting his ex-girlfriend in a hospital; came over to visit her now that he was out of prison; and discovered that she'd gotten her CCW. When he tried to push his way into her home to have some "fun" with her again, she brandished her gun and threatened to blow his head off. So he went downtown and filed for a protection order against her, so the police would disarm her. Granted. He didn't even lie at the emergency hearing; she really did say, "I'll blow your head off." He just left out that he was a convict, had hospitalized her, and was trying to force his way into her home.

Protection order laws don't need to be streamlined to make it even easier for bad guys to get Court orders against their victims.

Taking a person's right to defend himself in an ex parte hearing is a bad idea.

[44 AMP]

Taking a person's right to defend himself in an ex parte hearing is a bad idea.

I agree. But I would pedantically point out that they aren't taking away the right, just the legal ability to use a gun to do so. TEMPORARILY...of course....

[Metal god]

Is there any legal definition of "continuing"? If I meet a girl for serious action twice, is that "continuing"? 3 times? 5 times?

It's murkyer then that , who decides it's serious ? What If I/she/he never considered it a serious relationship ? What is that definition ?

Originally Posted by from link

Use of Byrne grants for implementation of State crisis intervention programs

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’’

State crisis intervention programs .

I can't get past the first couple pages with out throwing up a little So sick of these titles/labels/manipulations . Can you say affordable care act

Boy this is going to be a long read

[TDL]

I feel fairly certain that lawyers have already figured out how to abuse red flag laws in divorce cases. It provides a ready-made system for getting the police to hold of someone's guns until their property is divided.

Divorce, custody, post divorce issues. There have been pieces in law journals, by divorce lawyers who use domestic or restraining orders in family law as a negotiating ploy and who estimate 80% of such orders during domestic litigation are simply negotiating tools.

The main issue the very low probative burdens to get such orders, really at this point, "guilty until proven innocent," allowing preponderance instead of beyond reasonable doubt, allowing heresy and boatload of evidence that would be excluded in normal cases.

If the harm of a restraining order that the defendant can't call or contact or approach the plaintiff, we all rightly see that as essentially no harm. If though the harm is losing a constitutionally protected right, that is a lot of harm

[44 AMP]

If though the harm is losing a constitutionally protected right, that is a lot of harm

In the overall scheme of things, isn't restricting rights what restraining orders do? TO legally, by court order, prevent you from doing something you otherwise have the right to do?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

It's murkyer then that , who decides it's serious ? What If I/she/he never considered it a serious relationship ? What is that definition ?

The drafters of the law probably don't want to define "serious," first because it's impossible to do so and, second, because they want to cast the net as wide as possible.

What is "serious" in a relationship? In my time, a relationship became "serious" either when marriage was discussed or when the relationship progressed to sexual intercourse. But we now live in a time when "hooking up" is apparently fairly normal (at least in some circles), and "hooking up" is (if I understand it correctly) having sex for no other reason than to have sex -- no commitments implied by either party.

So if two people "hook up," does that qualify as a serious relationship under this law even though both participants explicitly understood it at the time as NOT holding any significance other than scratching a sexual itch?

[44 AMP]

Any time any law attempts to codify and set standards for the "romantic" relationships between consenting adults, we've got problems ahead.

and, yes, that covers marriage as well...

consider the hypothetical ...
we had coffee, we chatted, flirted perhaps, and shook hands (physical relationship). She fell head over heels in love, I wasn't interested. Now, she's upset and seeking to punish me for not falling in love with her by having the govt take away my guns.

Do we really WANT a law that allows that???

I don't.